Cover not available
Part of
Mobilizing Others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities
Edited by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz and Peter Golato
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 33] 2020
► pp. 115–146

Chapter 5
Mobilizing student compliance

On the directive use of Finnish second-person declaratives and interrogatives during violin instruction

| University of Helsinki
Drawing on video-recorded violin lessons as data, the article describes the violin teacher’s use of Finnish second-person declarative and interrogative directives in mobilizing student compliance. The data show that the declarative directives are regularly used when (1) the student is already engaged in the task at hand and (2) the nominated actions concern the basics of violin playing. The paper argues that these directives are thus not only about mobilizing recipient action locally but also about establishing normatively-desired behavior more generally. The interrogative directives, then again, are typically used when (1) there has been a momentary shortcoming in the student’s prior behavior and (2) the nominated action is a one-time accomplishment facilitating the smooth unfolding of the instructional encounter.
Keywords: conversation analysis, instructional interaction, violin lessons, music education, directives, compliance, declaratives, interrogatives, temporality, bodily activities
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Data and method
  • Analysis
    • Second-person declarative directives
    • Second-person interrogative directives
  • Discussion
  • Funding
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.33.05ste
References (78)
References
Antaki, Charles. 2002. “‘Lovely’: Turn-Initial High-Grade Assessments in Telephone Closings.” Discourse Studies 4: 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, and Mark Rapley. 2000. “‘Brilliant. Next Question…’: High-Grade Assessment Sequences in the Completion of Interactional Units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 235–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different.” Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, Jakob Cromdal, and Lena Levin. 2017. “Starting Out as a Driver: Progression in Instructed Pedal Work. In Memory Practices and Learning: Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives, ed. by Åsa Mäkitalo, Per Linell, and R. Säljö, 113–142. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Broth, Mathias, and Leelo Keevallik. 2014. “Getting Ready to Move as a Couple: Accomplishing Mobile Formations in a Dance Class.” Space and Culture 17: 107–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 1999. “On Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 881–909. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1979. “Responding to Indirect Speech Acts.” Cognitive Psychology 11: 430–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2016. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12: 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, Tracy S., and Paul Drew. 2008. “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2015. “When Recipient Design Fails: Egocentric Turn-Design of Instructions in Driving School Lessons Leading to Breakdowns of Intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung 16: 63–101.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Instruction Practices in German Driving Lessons: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics: 1–18.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Danièle Gazin. 2014. “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons: Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur. 2015. “Clients’ Resistance to Therapists’ Proposals: Managing Epistemic and Deontic Status.” Journal of Pragmatics 90: 12–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. “Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives. Language in Society 5: 25–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2017. “In the Face of Resistance: A Finnish Practice for Insisting on Imperatively Formatted Directives.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 215–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, John, Brian Davies, and Emma Rich. 2009. The body made flesh: embodied learning and the corporeal device. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30: 391–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1980. “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Asta Cekaite. 2013. “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46: 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Orchestrating Directive Trajectories in Communicative Projects in Family Interaction.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Paul Drew, 185–214. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, Jon, Lewis Hyland, and Avijit Banerjee. 2014. “Work to Make Simulation Work: “Realism,” Instructional Correction and the Body in Training.” Discourse Studies, 16: 247–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane, and Gabriele Kasper. 1981. “Politeness Markers in English and German.” In Conversational Routines: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 157–185. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine. 2014. Imperatives. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. 2010. Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4): 401–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Paul Drew. 2016. “Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra. 2012. “Responding to Directives: What Can Children Do When a Parent Tells Them What to Do?” In Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People, ed. by Maryanne Theobold, and Susan Danby, 57–84. Bingley, UK: Emerald Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra, and Kobin H. Kendrick 2016. “Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 272–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. “The Logic of Politeness: Or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s.” In Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.Google Scholar
Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby, Pål Gulbrandsen, and Jan Svennevig. 2015. “Whose Decision? Negotiating Epistemic and Deontic Rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 54–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna. 2008. “Kelan virkailijoiden henkilötunnuspyynnöt: Tutkimus rutiininomaisista toiminnoista. [Asking for Clients’ Identity Number or Identity Card at Finnish Social Security offices: A Study of Routinized Activities.]” Virittäjä 112: 483–517.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1995. “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna, and Ann Weatherall. 2015. “Orientations to Epistemics and Deontics in Treatment Discussions.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, Douglas H. 1991. “Teacher Authority as Practical Action.” Linguistics and Education 3: 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McHoul, Alexander. 1978. “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7: 183–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlino, Sara. 2014. “Singing in ‘Another’ Language: How Pronunciation Matters in the Organisation of Choral Rehearsals.” Social Semiotics 24: 420–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room: Time, Embodied Resources and Praxeological Embeddedness.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 269–302. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice. 2004. “Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims about Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 447–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishizaka, Aug. 2006. “What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 119–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parton, Katharine. 2014. Epistemic stance in orchestral interaction. Social Semiotics 24: 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reed, Darren, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed. 2014. “The Emergence of Learnables in Music Masterclasses.” Social Semiotics 24: 446–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhikoski, Anu. 2015. ”Laita, laitatko vai laitat? Kolmen direktiivirakenteen variaatio asiakaspalvelutilanteessa. [Imperative, Interrogative or 2nd-Person Declarative? Variation of Three Directive Constructions in Service Encounters].” Virittäjä 2(2015): 189–222.Google Scholar
Sahlström, J. Fritjof. 2002. “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37: 47–57.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2013. Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2010. “‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ Communicative Acts in Semiotic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 337–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. “Lääkärin ohjeet. [Doctor’s Instructions].” In Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla [Conversation during doctor’s consultation], ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Anssi Peräkylä, and Kari Eskola, 89–111. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Hanna Lappalainen. 2009. ”’Mä otan tän’. Käynnin syyn esittämisen tavat kioskilla. [‘I’ll have this’. Presenting one’s reason for the visit at convenience store].” In Kieli kioskilla: Tutkimuksia kioskiasioinnin rutiineista. [Talk at Convenience Store. Studies on the Routines in Convenience Store Encounters], ed. by Hanna Lappalainen, and Liisa Raevaara, 90–119. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Heidi Vepsäläinen. 2016. “The Finnish No.” In NU and NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 243–280. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2017. Imperative turns at talk: An introduction. In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2011. “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt) 52. [URL]
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Chiara Monzoni. 2016. “On the Hierarchy of Interactional Resources: Embodied and Verbal Behavior in the Management of Joint Activities with Material Objects.” Journal of Pragmatics 103: 15–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2017. “Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles -pa and -pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives.” In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 357–380. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35: 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilising Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed, and Elizabeth Haddon. 2013. “NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating Restarts in the Pursuits of Learnables in Vocal Masterclasses.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 22–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veronesi, Daniela. 2014. “Correction Sequences and Semiotic Resources in Ensemble Music Workshops: The Case of Conduction®.” Social Semiotics 24: 468–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Peter. 1996. A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of Correction Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 247–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
West, Candace. 1990. “Not Just ‘Doctors’ Orders’: Directive-Response Sequences in Patients’ Visits to Women and Men Physicians.” Discourse and Society 1: 85–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma. 1986. Suomen kieliopillisten muotojen toissijainen käyttö. [Secondary Uses of Finnish Grammatical Forms]. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics 28. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Zemel, Alan, and Timothy Koschmann. 2011. “Pursuing a Question: Reinitiating IRE Sequences as a Method of Instruction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 475–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann. 2011. “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba X (“One Needs to X”).” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44: 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Giovanni Rossi. 2016. “Assistance and Other Forms of Cooperative Engagement.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 20–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann. 2013. “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 256–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
2023. ‘Go on keep going’: The instruction of sustained embodied activities. Discourse Studies 25:5 ► pp. 692 ff. DOI logo
Vatanen, Anna
2023. Embodied Noticings as Repair Initiations: On Multiactivity in Choir Rehearsals. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Messner, Monika
2022. “Abbiamo detto con te no che tu hai ta da di da dim (Moves Right Hand on the Beat)”—The Interplay of Semiotic Modes in Chamber Music Lessons Under a Multimodal and Interactional Perspective. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Montiegel, Kristella
2022. Teachers’ gestures for building listening and spoken language skills. Discourse Processes 59:10 ► pp. 771 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Monitoring and evaluating body knowledge: metaphors and metonymies of body position in children’s music instrument instruction. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s4 DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.